Mystery cults worldwide say the instrument is the voice of god, once belonged to women, was stolen by men, and use it to turn boys into men through a process of death and rebirth
Still reading, but wanted to quickly note before I forgot:
You say, "As it stands, Chinese and Korean characters share a common ancestor." But Hangeul, the Korean writing system, is a modern invention (1443) that maybe took some inspiration from the ʼPhags-pa script, but it doesn't seem to have taken elements from Chinese characters. Maybe you are thinking about the Japanese Kana which where explicitly taken from Chinese characters.
I'm operating on a wikipedia/chatGPT level on how many times writing was invented independently. Maybe it would be more accurate to say, "Chinese and Korean *writing systems* share a common ancestor."
Yes, I guess you are talking about the invention of "writing" rather than the particular characters or even the writing system or it's particularities like whether that writing is alphabetic (Hangeul, 'Phags-pa), has a syllabary (Japanese Kana), or is logographic (Chinese).
In that case though, is it clear that diffusion isn't what lead to the spread of writing? When one writing culture interacts with another, the other may not learn the original writing system but may still see how to make their own writing system for their own language. For instance, Sequoyah couldn't read European "talking leaves" but was still impressed by them to the point that he made a syllabary for Cherokee. Could the Chinese have been impressed with Sumerian "talking stones" and then have discovered "talking turtle shells"?
Wikipedia says this about why scholars think cuneiform and hieroglyphics were different: "Regarding Egyptian hieroglyphs, scholars point to very early differences with Sumerian cuneiform 'in structure and style' as to why the two systems '(must) have developed independently,' and if any 'stimulus diffusion' of writing did occur, it only served to transmit the bare idea of writing between cultures." I think the "bare idea of writing" is the more interesting and important idea though, and it's what Chinese characters offered King Sejong when he made Hangeul (and maybe he got the idea of an alphabet from 'Phags-pa script or it was indeed novel to him or one of his scholars.
The depth of time involved and the stubbornness of the anti-diffusionists reminds me of one my own favorite anthropological mysteries: the oddly consistent sayings around the world about sunshowers -- the weather phenomenon of rain falling while the sun is out.
From Japan to Sweden to Africa, there's a complex of motifs associated with this weather phenomenon involving the marriage or birth of animals/spirits. In Japan, sunshine through the rain means that the foxes are getting married. In the American South, the Devil is beating his wife. In parts of Africa, the leopard is giving birth.
I've tried researching the origins of this, but I haven't found many scholars that are willing to take a guess. I've read one article that outlines a diffusionist position (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40465016) but then rejects it with a line of thought that I don't find particularly convincing. I suppose it's possible that it radiated out from Asia in more recent ages through trade, but the sayings describe weather that's rare enough that I doubt it could spread easily through such limited cultural contacts.
Just one more mysterious ancient religious complex. Anyways, I look forward to reading more from you!
Enjoyed reading this. And very handy as it is now shared or diffusing...
nitpicks on definitions
The dreaming is not a religion per se, it is a worlding. Religion and it's differentiation from religion/art/morality/polity/parenting/humaning on country, come later with more complex economies/societies and the specialization that complexity allows. The dreaming tells the time as now BTW, not of times past (this is why modern Australian usage avoids dreamtime compared to dreaming as it indicates it is over and done with) (another differentiation made possible by more complex economies, of which the 'hunter-gathering' is the first negotiated complexification) (and I push it right back into the earliest Homo spp worldings). Dreaming is a type of world that selfs in story and ceremony in landscape. It's a body for the world if the world was a self.... in which every day is a ceremony, some days or places are just more intense that others. (Chopped up and put back together!! There are links here with Osiris and the Oxyrhyncus fishies (later used as re-birth symbols by Christians, bull-roarers don't work so well underwater but.)
Also I do not implicitly understand the North American usage of race (you might be using here). It is really fuzzzy for non-Americans. [Given members of at least two authorized or state sanctioned categories of races in the United States are both descendants of slave-owners (membership & separation between the two being triggered by perceived melanin level differences in the skin) it is very confusing for the rest of us.] I note Aboriginal Australians have no use of 'race' in their skin-based moieties, nor even use relatedness in forming cohorts.
So, are you (or your sources more importantly) using 'race' as:
① a substitute/shorthand for arbitrary breaks in clines across climactic & latitudinal selection (less melanin in skin if you eat oats in the rain in order to avoid vitamin d depletion because of a carbohyrdrate diet--- and generate more Vitamin D from what sunlight is available) or,
② as general population background with less admixture from physical diffusion (the loosest type of landrace definition) or,
③ the racist form of race where it refers to some pseudo-species level of difference based on 'group selection' and/or magical beliefs invested in "blood and soil" ideologies, or,
Did I call dreamtime a religion? Don't recall and ctrl-f didn't help. It's definitely much more than a religion. But what's important for this piece is that it's a system of thought (worlding, even) that is shared across Australia. Would be curious if you know people who criticize the degree to which that is true.
As for race, closest to 1, though of course the sources go back over a century.
Still reading, but wanted to quickly note before I forgot:
You say, "As it stands, Chinese and Korean characters share a common ancestor." But Hangeul, the Korean writing system, is a modern invention (1443) that maybe took some inspiration from the ʼPhags-pa script, but it doesn't seem to have taken elements from Chinese characters. Maybe you are thinking about the Japanese Kana which where explicitly taken from Chinese characters.
I'm operating on a wikipedia/chatGPT level on how many times writing was invented independently. Maybe it would be more accurate to say, "Chinese and Korean *writing systems* share a common ancestor."
Yes, I guess you are talking about the invention of "writing" rather than the particular characters or even the writing system or it's particularities like whether that writing is alphabetic (Hangeul, 'Phags-pa), has a syllabary (Japanese Kana), or is logographic (Chinese).
In that case though, is it clear that diffusion isn't what lead to the spread of writing? When one writing culture interacts with another, the other may not learn the original writing system but may still see how to make their own writing system for their own language. For instance, Sequoyah couldn't read European "talking leaves" but was still impressed by them to the point that he made a syllabary for Cherokee. Could the Chinese have been impressed with Sumerian "talking stones" and then have discovered "talking turtle shells"?
Wikipedia says this about why scholars think cuneiform and hieroglyphics were different: "Regarding Egyptian hieroglyphs, scholars point to very early differences with Sumerian cuneiform 'in structure and style' as to why the two systems '(must) have developed independently,' and if any 'stimulus diffusion' of writing did occur, it only served to transmit the bare idea of writing between cultures." I think the "bare idea of writing" is the more interesting and important idea though, and it's what Chinese characters offered King Sejong when he made Hangeul (and maybe he got the idea of an alphabet from 'Phags-pa script or it was indeed novel to him or one of his scholars.
Incredible article!
The depth of time involved and the stubbornness of the anti-diffusionists reminds me of one my own favorite anthropological mysteries: the oddly consistent sayings around the world about sunshowers -- the weather phenomenon of rain falling while the sun is out.
From Japan to Sweden to Africa, there's a complex of motifs associated with this weather phenomenon involving the marriage or birth of animals/spirits. In Japan, sunshine through the rain means that the foxes are getting married. In the American South, the Devil is beating his wife. In parts of Africa, the leopard is giving birth.
I've tried researching the origins of this, but I haven't found many scholars that are willing to take a guess. I've read one article that outlines a diffusionist position (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40465016) but then rejects it with a line of thought that I don't find particularly convincing. I suppose it's possible that it radiated out from Asia in more recent ages through trade, but the sayings describe weather that's rare enough that I doubt it could spread easily through such limited cultural contacts.
Just one more mysterious ancient religious complex. Anyways, I look forward to reading more from you!
Love a good sunshower, didn't know they had any mythology associated. Cool!
The strangest of these re-occuring themes is the tooth fairy being a rat. At least in Latin cultures and polynesia. Forget where else.
Great writeup on a very interesting subject! Keep up the great research!
After reading this and a couple other of your posts, I wanted to share a few things you may find interesting (if you haven't already read them).
First is Corman McCarthy speculating on the origin of language. https://nautil.us/the-kekul-problem-236574/
A linguists response https://nautil.us/a-linguist-responds-to-cormac-mccarthy-236622/
And another response from McCarthy https://nautil.us/cormac-mccarthy-returns-to-the-kekul-problem-236896/
Second is the book "Cognitive Gadgets: The Cultural Evolution of Thinking" by Cecilia Hayes.
Enjoyed reading this. And very handy as it is now shared or diffusing...
nitpicks on definitions
The dreaming is not a religion per se, it is a worlding. Religion and it's differentiation from religion/art/morality/polity/parenting/humaning on country, come later with more complex economies/societies and the specialization that complexity allows. The dreaming tells the time as now BTW, not of times past (this is why modern Australian usage avoids dreamtime compared to dreaming as it indicates it is over and done with) (another differentiation made possible by more complex economies, of which the 'hunter-gathering' is the first negotiated complexification) (and I push it right back into the earliest Homo spp worldings). Dreaming is a type of world that selfs in story and ceremony in landscape. It's a body for the world if the world was a self.... in which every day is a ceremony, some days or places are just more intense that others. (Chopped up and put back together!! There are links here with Osiris and the Oxyrhyncus fishies (later used as re-birth symbols by Christians, bull-roarers don't work so well underwater but.)
Also I do not implicitly understand the North American usage of race (you might be using here). It is really fuzzzy for non-Americans. [Given members of at least two authorized or state sanctioned categories of races in the United States are both descendants of slave-owners (membership & separation between the two being triggered by perceived melanin level differences in the skin) it is very confusing for the rest of us.] I note Aboriginal Australians have no use of 'race' in their skin-based moieties, nor even use relatedness in forming cohorts.
So, are you (or your sources more importantly) using 'race' as:
① a substitute/shorthand for arbitrary breaks in clines across climactic & latitudinal selection (less melanin in skin if you eat oats in the rain in order to avoid vitamin d depletion because of a carbohyrdrate diet--- and generate more Vitamin D from what sunlight is available) or,
② as general population background with less admixture from physical diffusion (the loosest type of landrace definition) or,
③ the racist form of race where it refers to some pseudo-species level of difference based on 'group selection' and/or magical beliefs invested in "blood and soil" ideologies, or,
④ metonym for xenophobia and outgroup bashing?
?
I enjoy these contributions, as always.
Did I call dreamtime a religion? Don't recall and ctrl-f didn't help. It's definitely much more than a religion. But what's important for this piece is that it's a system of thought (worlding, even) that is shared across Australia. Would be curious if you know people who criticize the degree to which that is true.
As for race, closest to 1, though of course the sources go back over a century.